2. Philosophy of Freud: Part II Q&A (Remastered)

Philosophy of Freud: Part II - Q&A

R.J. Rushdoony

[Rushdoony] Are there any questions?

[Audience Member] Is there a mental health program in Soviet Russia?

[Rushdoony] Oh yes there is a mental health program in Soviet Russia, it is not Freudian, they don’t care for Freud they consider him too spiritual because he emphasizes the mind of man. For them it’s chemistry and electricity. However, lately they have been a little more congenial to a mental approach, but it is significant that in this area they are exploring occultism. So, occultism is now openly a subject of legitimate Marxist study, and again here you have something that is congenial to this kind of total control by experts. Because occultism really is a belief that there are all kinds of hidden powers within nature, it denies the supernatural, which man by understanding and manipulating can use to control other men and the world.

Yes?

[Audience member] Basically is there any difference between Freud and Jung and Adler? What would be the basic difference?

[Rushdoony] Yes, Freud emphasizes these three basic instincts and the counter instincts to a very great extent. Jung accepts this, but he says there is a racial unconscious as well with each group and the racial unconscious say of the Negro, and the Asiatic, governs him as well. Freud says “no, this is common to all men.” Adler, the least important of the three, reads men in terms of more shallow instincts; urge to power, inferiority and superiority complexes, and things like this. Adler’s influence is virtually finished; Jung’s is fairly extensive, Freud’s is the determinative one. Jung is fading I would say rapidly at the moment.

Yes?

[Audience member] In respect to this experimentation that’s being done. Would you classify such things as, like experiments in putting artificial parts like a kidney and a heart. We have a friend who really, it was a problem to know what to do, whether they should allow their relatives to go onto a kidney machine for instance. And I just wondered about the moral aspect of this.

[Rushdoony] Yes this business of transplants, a very good question. Now there are all kinds of enthusiastic reports about these transplants, and the four issues of Life had quite an enthusiastic thing, they talk about them as an already accomplished thing. This is not true. What they are doings is to transplant animal organisms and organs and other human organisms into the human body.

Now does it work? Well first of all let’s analyze the human body. It is made up of about fifty trillion cells. Every human is distinctively human, radically different from any animal cell. Moreover, every cell that you have is distinctively yours, first there’s a vast difference between male and female, every man and every woman is male and female to every cell of their body; and a female organism, or cell, or a piece of skin, is distinctly female. There’s a world of difference, men and women are totally different to every cell. Then every individual is unique.

Now, the fifty trillion cells in your body and mine have their systems of immunization, they immediately attack any invader into the body. So that if you get a thorn in your finger immediately the body mobilizes to repel that invader. If you catch some kind of disease, the body organizes to repel that invader. So, there is a continual process of battling against anything, and the body regards in its every cell, every kind of invader as an enemy.

Now, supposing you take somebody else’s kidney and transplant it into your body, or an animal’s kidney into your body. Two things immediately come into play. This is an alien organism and every cell in your body is at once concerned with fighting this. Moreover, this organism which they’ve kept alive and transplanted says “ah but this isn’t my body” and it works against the host, so the two are working against each other, trying to destroy each other. Now how do they make them work (up to a measure)? They take and they irradiate the blood with radiation, or else they give him urine and other drugs to do the same thing, to break down the immunization in the blood. But what happens? Short of killing the body with radiation, what happens is that the radiation wears off very quickly, after a period of months to almost a year, and the body begins to work again to kill the invader. But if you keep taking the person (and these people who have had such surgery are in hot house atmospheres) and you make the hospital room antiseptic or if he goes to his home you make it antiseptic, and you bring him in periodically and you give him the drug or radiate his blood, you’ve destroyed or are periodically suppressing or temporarily destroying the capacity of the blood to repel an antibody, so what happens? If the person gets sniffles they die. The body has no capacity now to resist anything, so that they keep them artificially alive for a time and then they die inevitably, because the transplant is a death sentence, you’ve put an alien body into the body and it rejects it, it will not accept any other alien body.

Now there’s one thing with which they’ve had limited success, and this is not a transplant, it is patchwork using silicone, silicone parts, there has been limited success but even there, there are indications that it will lead to tumors and cancer, and it’s tragic in some areas how many operations are being performed foolishly. And one thing that upsets me no end, this isn’t common knowledge but today there’s a new kind of falsies, they are silicone breasts whereby older women and very often young girls who are flat chested, have the skin lifted and these silicone breasts are placed underneath. And I have seen them because a young man whom I led to Christ who stops by is a surgical supply man, and they have them in four sizes. The largest is a burlesque size and burlesque women use them regularly. Now, there are already indications that this silicone, which is the one thing they’ve found that seems to be safe, does produce cancer, or tumors.

So they have found that they cannot play God with the body as they thought. And yet they’re already saying “well these problems are nothing, we’re going to overcome all of these problems because we’re going to overcome.” It isn’t the ‘civil righters’ only, but these scientists who have as their theme song “we shall overcome.” Because they do not respect God’s creative power and the statement of Genesis that God created each thing after its kind. They believe all forms of life merge into another on an evolutionary scale, they emerge above and downward so that you can take one and transplant it to the other and so on. But these transplants do not work. What you read, there have been stories several times in the papers about people getting parts from a pig or chimpanzee and going home, is that they go home to a laboratory type of home prepared for them, and they ultimately die. And what they say well is “the operation was successful, unfortunately several months later the person died of pneumonia.” Yes, he got the sniffles and in a matter of hours that was pneumonia and the person was dead, this is not successful.

Yes?

[Audience member] Wouldn’t this also be true of a blood transfusion? And what would be the moral standpoint?

[Rushdoony] Well a good question, I’m not sufficiently competent here, but there certainly have been questions raised by very competent people, there’s a great deal of debate here, about the validity of blood transfusions; what will they do in the long run? Many things like this are apparently successful for a time. Blood transfusions apparently do some good over the short haul. We don’t know on the long haul, and we may not know for some years. There are people, however, who say that there are deleterious effects, I don’t know. But your body is distinctively yours. Every organ, every cell of the fifty trillion cells is distinctively yours, and it will never change.

[Audience member] Is that why the Jehovah Witnesses, for one group of people, do not believe in transfusion, will not accept it?

[Rushdoony] I know they don’t, but I don’t know the reason why.

[Audience member] Their[objection] is on the Scripture about not drinking blood.

[Rushdoony] Oh.

[Audience member] What about the birth control movement? Declining population and food, and seems to be a left-wing movement.

[Rushdoony] Yes. Again the purpose is the total control of man, and these modern devices, particularly the pills, are potentially very, very dangerous, and today so many things of this sort as well as the coil, very dangerous, are being introduced with very little experimentation, very little concern about side-effects. Man is the guinea pig now.

Yes?

[Audience member] In connection with the birth control pill, my doctor said there were eighty-five known deaths in Los Angeles last year from this pill, and it does cause thrombosis of the leg. Many young women have to have their veins pulled.

[Rushdoony] I’ve heard that, but you see they do not publish this sort of thing anymore than this business of transplants, you get the glowing story of Life and anyone who brings out the other facts is an obstructionist and an extremist and so on.

[Audience member] Well they did slip up then because a couple weeks ago or so, in Life I think it was, it showed a guy who had got a whole set of lungs, and boy he was doing bad. He’d been away from home for two months, and they didn’t know if he was going to live or not. The whole aspect of it, he said they just didn’t know. [He was all] …skin and bones, just 98 pounds.

[Rushdoony] That’s right, but they do this to present a picture of objectivity. “You see, we are giving both sides,j” but it’s a slanted picture.

Yes?

[Audience member] Talking about this birth control business, I recall hearing someone talking about population explosion. I believe they said that the population density of Belgium was even higher than that of India, to give an example. Is that true?

[Rushdoony] Yes. Someday I would like to speak on the myth of the population explosion, it is pure nonsense. There’s no evidence for it, and the basic purpose is to persuade you that there is so you will accept their answer. First, create an artificial problem and then talk people into accepting an artificial totalitarian answer.

[Audience member] Also they never mention the vast number of people who are dying, you’d think no-one ever dies. You know they never mention that.

[Rushdoony] Of course they don’t expect death to exist very long. Professor of physics Ettinger has written a book The Prospect of Immortality I have it on my desk in which, perhaps you’ve seen notices of it, there were excerpts from it run about a year ago in the Herald Examiner on the deep-freeze plan whereby if you are going to die of a disease your hastily put into deep freeze and then you’re thawed out when they’ve solved that problem and brought back to life, and so on. And you are kept alive forever that way because, ultimately of course, they’re going to conquer death and maybe after going two-three deep freezes you will reach that age. Although in one article they state, and this is amazing, that they will conquer death by 1984. But to me the interesting thing is that Ettinger, and this is done with a straight face and with intense earnestness, has a chapter on the freezer-centered society.

Yes?

[Audience member] There is some discussion of the fact that Freud at the end of his life denied, or turned against his old theories, is there anything to this story?

[Rushdoony] I don’t believe that.

[Audience member] He really believed it?

[Rushdoony] Yes he did, with an intensity. He was a strange figure, he died in London as you know, I believe in ‘39 or ‘40, and kept working and writing almost to the very last. He had cancer of the throat and jaw and had been in considerable agony for about fifteen to twenty years, and any number of operations. He refused to accept any pain killers or morphine, and continued working and writing and defending his position right up until the last, I think the last day and a half, he finally accepted medication, and then went under almost immediately and died. But it was simply raw courage that kept him going and his belief that he was right, that his ideas were necessary. It’s an amazing thing that a man could be so dedicated to promulgating total despair really.

[Audience member] Chisum and many of the scientists now say that, well the new morality is that you must be rid of guilt, and don’t the existentialists say that in addition to you are yourself and living your own life and all, that you shouldn’t feel guilty about any consequences or anything that you do? That you’re merely trying to find yourself.

[Rushdoony] yes these people are all Freudian in this respect. Guilt is a product of the past, recognize you have this inheritance and don’t let it bother you, so don’t worry about consequences; there is no law, so why should you worry about consequences to your actions?

Sartre, one of the leading existentialists, has not hesitated to admit that many of his student followers have committed suicide, this doesn’t bother him in the least.

[Audience member] Because the guilt does come up. They can’t down it.

[Rushdoony] Right, right but you simply live with it, you grin and bear in effect. Existentialism today of this sort is promoted in virtually all our periodicals. Life and Time are very definitely existentialist, and this is true of most of your major periodicals.

[Another Q & A session now follows]

Recently I saw a publication in which Calvin was quoted as being socialistic, well I went to the commentary of Calvin from which this citation came and it didn’t read in any sense socialistic. What Calvin did was to emphasize justiceas the concern of officers of state, and justice is a different thing from a welfare economy. He was talking about law courts and crime. It was as vicious a misrepresentation as possible. This is today routine, so that we need ot check sources out thoroughly.

[Audience member] And what we should be doing is what the liberals have attempted to do to us for many years, and we have always had to go with our documentation, we have felt we have, as we’re always challenged. And what we must do is to challenge them every time they make these statements where? Which founding father? Where did you find it, what is this? This is the way that we can fight out their inaccuracy.

[Rushdoony] Yes, we allow them to put us on the defensive. I was talking to a woman just this past week who showed me a little quiz that her daughter had received in a certain class that asked all kinds of impertinent questions. And these questions were set in the context of some that were sensible routine questions for the particular class. But questions on, they began “when do you think that you ought to start dating?” This is for I think sixth or seventh grade girl, and then went on to questions about sex education. And when she objected and said this type of questioning had a background that was very dangerous, and such questions came out of questionnaires, they’d been pulled out of questionnaires of a very questionable background, she was asked to document her charges. And I said “well you go back and tell them that they should be on the defensive, what right have they to ask your child to answer to impertinent questions that are none of their business? They are there to teach her certain things, not to probe in her private life, and ask questions which you yourself would not ask of your child because you wouldn’t feel, first of all, your child had any right to express an opinion on those subjects, or that it was proper to start thinking or talking in those directions.” I said, “keep it on the offensive. They have to vindicate their position, not you your criticism.” But this is what they so often do, they act as though we have to defend ourselves for raising a question. And of course they do not document, or their documentation is not valid.

For example this was done by some historian just as a joke, but I thought there was a good point to it. I believe it was in the journal of the history of ideas and this man who had just written a study on Calvin, one aspect, and it was a secular historian, said he was interested having finished his work to encounter in Will Durant’s book on the reformation a statement that Calvin was very hostile to Copernicus. “That’s strange I went through all those passages of Calvin when I was doing my research, I didn’t see that.” So he checked the footnotes and he found that Durant had quoted Andrew White, former President of Cornell in his History of the Warfare of Science and Theology. So he went to White, and white had quoted Farrar about fifty years before, and he went to Farrar and Farrar had quoted someone else, and he went back, and each time the quotation was a little vaguer, and finally he got back to about 180 years ago, and the thing petered out, and it had rested on a misunderstanding of a passage. So, he pointed out how each one had quoted the other and had built up until finally they had Calvin against Copernicus, and then he concluded “What did Calvin think of Copernicus?” He said very simply “he’d never heard of the man.”

Yes?

[Audience member] Would you please define existentialism?

[Rushdoony] Yes, I’ll be spending tomorrow afternoon at the class on existentialism and its meaning. But essentially existentialism says that the only reality, the only standard is your own life and your own existence, there is no law outside of yourself, this is it. So that if there is a God he’s irrelevant. Other people, well it’s what you choose to make of them if you realize to them, if it’s a personal ‘I-thou’ relationship, then fine; but otherwise, no. So you are totally a law unto yourself.

Yes?

[Audience member] Defining the world a little bit more impersonal.

[Rushdoony] The relationship to impersonalism? Of existentialism?

[Audience member] Yes.

[Rushdoony] Well existentialism says the world is ultimately impersonal, and therefore since you have consciousness, which is a meaningless thing, there is no law in the universe and things are governed by basically impersonal forces. So there’s no law, there’s no morality, so live it up! This is the conclusion. When you talk about law and morality and God you’re talking about personal things. And you’re living in an area of myth and talking about an area of myth, so since your self-consciousness is nothing more than an epiphenomena in the universe, kind of an accident, it’s under no law. Therefore don’t pay any attention to anything, just live it up.

[Audience member] Is this the neo-orthodoxy? or is that a little different?

[Rushdoony] There is a minor variation but neo-orthodoxy is existentialism applied to theology, and as I’ll point out tomorrow in great detail, it’s like talking about ‘Christian atheism’ when you talk about ‘Christian existentialism.’ Barth, Brunner, all these men are existentialists. The great fountainhead of existentialism is Kierkegaard and Kierkegaard is a Kantian, and Immanuel Kant is really the fountainhead of all modern anti-Christian philosophy and existentialism, the grandfather of Marxism via Hegel, a thoroughly detrimental force in modern history.

Yes?

[Audience member] Would Darby and Scofield [be guilty of impersonalism in their writings]?

[Rushdoony] No, that’s not quite it, but their perspective is not consistently Christian in that they, there may be some, that’s an interesting point you’ve thrown out. I’d have to analyze that and study it again sometime.

[Audience member] Cause we’re not doing anything here, we’re doing it for someone else.

[Rushdoony] Yes, yes. But their perspective involves some real heresies.

Yes?

[Audience member] I was just wonder when you were talking, is the repentance of Nineveh or in the book of Job, do you think the universal city when it becomes a universal Babylon, that there will be repentance of the type what’s done in Nineveh, or was that not a true repentance, was that just…?

[Rushdoony] No that was true repentance according to the Bible. Yes the book of Jonah, the book of Jonah gives us a picture of if as true repentance. No, for the simple reason that the book of Revelation gives us, in Revelation 18, a picture of the collapse of Babylon the great, and it is a picture of an economic collapse, and I think we’re building up to that now; both the worldwide economic disaster as well as the worldwide economic order; so this world-wide establishment will destroy itself via this economic collapse which it is building itself up to. So that revelation eighteen doesn’t give any picture of any repentance, but of a total collapse.

[Audience member] How do we protect ourselves from this?

[Rushdoony] Well first by faith, second by precautions. That’s another subject but I do believe we need to be out of debt, we need to start thinking in terms of some very real things, weathering it, and reconstruction, because God will honor us all the more of we think not merely in terms of our survival, but of creating the institutions now for the future. That’s why I believe in Christian schools and in churches that are free of this whole network, and myself a Christian college. We’ve got to begin the work of reconstruction now so that we are prepared for that day, because it will come.

[Audience member] Mr. Rushdoony I have always felt that when we can awaken a liberal that they are more articulate sometimes than we. Now going back to Buckley as an example, I once wrote to him about a year ago and told him he had his own little ivory tower and I got a very interesting letter back, and I could just exactly what you said today from this return letter. Now using Buckley as an example, would there be a way of reaching him or someone like him to re-educate him or do we discount him, or do we try?

[Rushdoony] Well, take him for what he’s worth. He’s doing some good and he’s doing some damage. Usually people don’t change their direction until they meet a crisis and pay the penalty. James Russell Lowell in a poem, I forget the title of it, poem written many years ago well before the civil war, had a line which I felt was so vivid and Christian. He spoke of men as:

We, who by shipwreck only find the shores

Of divine wisdom… 1

How true that is, “we who by shipwreck only find the shores of divine wisdom.” We have to have our way and our hopes wrecked before we’re ready to turn to God, we’re so proud and confident in our ways; and Buckley is finding his way pays off. He’s the, and Russell Kirk, they are the kept conservatives of the liberal opposition and they’re the prize exhibits. They appear on T.V. and they lecture on campuses and are introduced as it were, “this is the way a conservative should be, you know, nothing far out about him.” They’re thriving on it, they love it, they’re not going to change when the going is good.

[Audience member] I think you just waste a lot of time and effort on people like that.

[Audience member] Has the conspiracy throughout the many ages been carried through to a great extent in secret societies?

[Rushdoony] Yes, very definitely.

[Audience member] The Jacobin Club…

[Rushdoony] Yes, there is no question that secret societies have carried conspiracies through the centuries. In The Religion of Revolution I describe the chaos cults. Now these chaos cults, and it’s obtainable by the way, I did find a few more copies and it’s back here for quarter, that’ll be the first chapter of a book, a second chapter is already written. But I mention, I believe, in this, the liberty cap. Now the liberty cap is an ancient symbol of these secret societies going back to ancient Phrygia, centuries before Christ, of a revolutionary movement. The Phrygian cap, or ‘liberty cap,’ also had this aspect, the women’s cap was down, the tassel was down, the man’s was pointed up. And when the women wore it up it indicate homosexuality, when the man wore it down it indicated homosexuality also. Well it’s strange the places this liberty cap has popped up in history, it popped up in Nero’s reign and just after Nero’s reign in Rome. It’s appeared repeatedly in history, it reappears in the French Revolution very openly as the symbol of the revolutionists. It started to appear on some of our coins in the last century, and here is a Nicaraguan coin of 1899, I believe, and the liberty cap is here on the coin. Then I read recently a book by an American woman, Motley, Devils in Waiting is the title, she married a French colonial officer, and she found among the leaders in the witchcraft cults of Africa the liberty cap, and her husband was a member of the cult.

Now, you find this everywhere and you find it continuously in history. In a second chapter that I’ve already written to this Religion of Revolution I deal with the revolution that Mazdak staged in the late fifth century, 483 in the Persian empire, which was a great empire, an Indo-European people. And it was a communistic revolution. Well, the program of the Mazdakites was threefold; total communization of all wealth or money, all property, all women. For over fifty years they controlled the country, at the end of that time no child knew who his father was. They destroyed the empire. For a brief period under Chosroes Anushirvan (Khosrow I), they recuperated, but they had been destroyed from within to the point that in a few years the Muslims overwhelmed them and they’ve been living in insignificance for the most part since then. This was the Persian Empire.

Now those people, the Mazdakites, went underground. You meet with them centuries later as the Zinkdiks. You meet with them apparently as the Paulicians and the Bogomils, the Albigensians, as the infiltrate into Europe, and you have this kind of thing linked up with all kinds of underground subversive movements. So there is a long history to some of these conspiracies, there hasn’t been enough work done in this area.

Yes?

[Audience member] Can you recommend a good history book written by the right person that is true history?

[Rushdoony] In world history, or what period?

[Audience Member] Start with our history, the United States.

[Rushdoony] Well, there isn’t to much available. My publisher has brought out a few good books in American history that I highly recommend, of course my two books; This Independent Republic and The Nature of the American System but then a good introduction into Bibliography as well as the central periods of American history is The Myth of the New History which is a critique of the contemporary re-writings of American history. The Myth of the New History by David L. Hoggan, a Scots form of Hogan, and Betsy Ross bookshop does carry that.

Now, in The Myth of the New History, Dr. Hoggan begins with the War of Independence and gives all the pros and cons and how historians have tried to rewrite it, then he takes the war of 1812, the Mexican war, the Civil War, Spanish-American war, World War I and II, and the Korean war, and points out what the real story was, and which the reliable books are in each particular field, and how the reigning historians have attempted to pervert the meaning, so that in some instances some people don’t even know what the war of 1812 was about, or what the Mexican war was about, and that included Bobby Kennedy with his denunciation of the war as imperialistic aggression. Now that’s an excellent book. Then there is C. Gregg Singer’s book A Theological interpretation of American History, also available at the Betsy Ross bookshop published by my publisher. Those books will give you a good guide, and Dr. Hoggan’s book will give you the important books on special subjects. There isn’t any work that takes the whole of  American history and gives you an overall perspective from beginning to end, but on specific subjects Dr. Hoggan will tell you were to go. If you’re interested in the war of 1812 he’ll give you the names of the only reliable sources, and the same is true of every other period.

Yes?

[Rushdoony] Fortunately, in this area, any library has a head start in that all books published in the United States prior to 1815 in any and every field are now available on microfilm, and on microfilm in drawers and with the equipment room about this size will house all of them. And this is invaluable for research, and it does save a lot of expense because many of these things you couldn’t begin to collect now. So a college that would dedicate itself, such as I hope ours will when we are able to have it, to research in this area will have all the material available in this form. This is a marvelous thing.

Yes?

[Audience member] I’d like to ask two questions. First are Nesta Webster’s book reliable? Her books on the revolution and the conspiracy?

[Rushdoony] Her book on the French Revolution is the best single thing on the subject. Her book on World Revolution and some of her other books are excellent but they have this weakness, she is so intensely pro-English she has a blind spot there, and she refuses to see anything wrong, for example, with British-American Masonry, and as a result has overlooked some very important things, but she had an amazing knowledge of original sources. Her French Revolution I believe is must-reading and I think it’s one of the best ways of understanding what the Civil Rights revolution is doing here in this country. Interestingly enough when it was published in 1921 in this country, I believe, there was a long and extremely enthusiastic review in the Boston Telegraph by Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. He has changed somewhat since then.

[Audience member] I don’t have the one on the French Revolution I have the two others, the one on world revolution and the one.

[Rushdoony] Secret Societies and Subversive Movements No, the French Revolution is not attainable now unless you get it used, and there is a woman in Reno.

[Audience member] I have a copy of her.

[Rushdoony] Oh Mrs. Bailey has a copy.

[Audience member] I have a copy of it.

[Audience member] Well you could get me a copy could you?

[Audience member] I don’t know that I could

[Rushdoony] If you’ll telephone me sometime or drop me a line I’ll give you the name of this woman who has been collecting copies and selling them to conservatives. The French revolution is the, the subtitle is A Study in Democracy and she uses only the original source materials and no-one has dealt with them more thoroughly then she has, it’s a magnificent work.

Yes?

[Audience member] The other is someone’s statement that I would like you to elaborate on the idea. The social gospel followers repeatedly make the statement that Jesus was a revolutionary, and in fact of the Methodist literature there is a comparison drawn, which of course are completely, there is nothing comparable but they do draw these comparisons, and Jesus neither revolted against historical, Biblical law or government, but I’m wondering on what basis, this is an arbitrary statement is it not?

[Rushdoony] Yes, it is totally arbitrary without any foundation. It is a part of their propagandizing of believers into accepting something else which is thoroughly contemptible. There is no foundation for it and they know it. It’s just impossible to say anything else, it’s just so far out it’s ridiculous and yet absolutely contemptible.

[Audience member] Congregations sit and accept it without one flicker of contempt.

[Rushdoony] Yes, the first step is to in such a strategy, to make them accept revolution because Christ was a revolutionary, and second in the name of revolution drop Christ as an obsolete revolutionary. And of course now Christian morality is being dropped, so theology has been dropped, the morality is being dropped, and soon all reference to Him will be dropped.

[Audience member] Isn’t it true that a lot of so-called Christian schools that still accept and teach impersonal philosophy?

[Rushdoony] Yes, some of them unfortunately do, so this is just a weakness of some of these particular churches. However, the fact is that there’s not much point in having a Christian school unless you deny this position. So the majority of them are not wedded to this position. It doesn’t make sense, the public schools are doing your job if you believe in impersonalism, so why hold to it? I do know some Christian schools that do, but I’ve been interested to see that their leaders are hostile to the Christian school movement, they’d just as soon close down and let the public schools do the job more efficiently. Well our time is up.

1 “Under the Willows,” James Russell Lowell.